Have all really sinned?

[bloodofthelamb12]

Have you explored the full implications of saying Mary was without sin? If Mary was without sin, Christ was a liar. For it was Christ who spoke to Nicodemus, saying "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

He did not say, "For God so loved the sinners of this world..." but rather that "God so loved the world," encompassing all people in this group, without any exceptions.

If Mary was without sin, she had no need for Christ's sacrifice. In effect, God wouldn't have actually been giving his son for the world. He'd have been giving him for everyone in the world EXCEPT MARY.

John 3:16 conveys the distinct message of the universality of Christ's sacrifice; a sinless Mary contradicts it.

Peace be with you,
Caleb

 

[jasperbound]

Have you explored the full implications of saying Mary was without sin? If Mary was without sin, Christ was a liar. For it was Christ who spoke to Nicodemus, saying "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

I don't see how this idea and the idea of Mary being sinless contradict. Can God not love Mary if she is sinless? Does Mary not believe in Christ?

He did not say, "For God so loved the sinners of this world..." but rather that "God so loved the world," encompassing all people in this group, without any exceptions.

Yet, God hated Esau...

 

[GenemZ]

Romans 3:23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Some suggest that this verse means that every single individual has sinned, and therefore, Mary cannot have been sinless. If that's the case, do the people who believe that believe that the verse applies to every single individual, including babies? If so, that means that babies are sinners right from conception (all have sinned), and if they die before they reach an age where they can repent, then they die in sin, which probably does not fare well for them, unless a belief in Christ is not the only path to salvation.
So, do the people who believe this verse precludes any exception also believe that all babies, even those who die in birth, are sinners, and consequently, need to repent as much as adults, or else will not end up in Heaven with us?

Not even a sparrow will fall without it being God's will.

Matthew 10:29 niv
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny ? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father."

Note: An assarion was a small Roman copper coin worth one-sixteenth of a denarius or less than a half-hour's average wage - translated farthing in KJV. It was worth in today's money about a penny and a half. Sparrows were used as food and were the cheapest things sold at market.

Now.....

Babies can not yet think. They can not yet determine right from wrong. Therefore, they can not be held accountable for rejecting Jesus Christ. If God allows a baby to die, then that baby is saved by default. God knows who are his already. He is able to determine who can die before the age of accountability.

That baby, worth much more than a sparrow, can not die outside of God's will. If its God's will when even a sparrow may die?

Matthew 10:31 niv
"So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows."



It has to be God's will to allow a baby's death before reaching the age when they will be held accountable. "The age of accountability."

David put it succinctly when he said of his son who died shortly after birth.

2 Samuel 12:18-23 (New International Version)

" On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate."


David noticed that his servants were whispering among themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he asked.
"Yes," they replied, "he is dead."

Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.

His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!" He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

David knew he himself, was saved. He knew where he was going when he died. He knew that his son would be there to meet him when he departed from this world.

"I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

The baby was saved automatically!

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[jasperbound]

Babies can not yet think. They can not yet determine right from wrong. Therefore, they can not be held accountable for rejecting Jesus Christ. If God allows a baby to die, then that baby is saved by default. God knows who are his already. He is able to determine who can die before the age of accountability.

That baby, worth much more than a sparrow, can not die outside of God's will. If its God's will when even a sparrow may die?

Matthew 10:31 niv
"So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows."



It has to be God's will to allow a baby's death before reaching the age when they will be held accountable. "The age of accountability."

David put it succinctly when he said of his son who died shortly after birth.

2 Samuel 12:18-23 (New International Version)

" On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate."


David noticed that his servants were whispering among themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he asked.
"Yes," they replied, "he is dead."

Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.

His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!" He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

David knew he himself, was saved. He knew where he was going when he died. He knew that his son would be there to meet him when he departed from this world.

"I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

The baby was saved automatically!

Grace and peace, GeneZ

People who end up in hell are worth more than sparrows, yet they still end up in hell, so that verse doesn't prove that babies go to Heaven.
Why do Protestants have so many non-biblical ideas such as this age of accountability?
As for David, this is how I see it: The Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and God doesn't make any exceptions about who needs to believe in Him to be saved, does He? If it does, then God was a liar (according to some). Therefore, either 1) what David said was only David's opinion and not necessarily endorsed by God (after all, the Bible is also a historical book) and babies go to hell for not believing in God, or 2) the Bible contradicts itself.
Of course... it's possible that not every single individual in existence has fallen short of the glory of God and has sinned.
Also, I'm still trying to figure out how a fetus is able to Jesus to get out of a town as Luke 8:37 states.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I disagree with the fact that Mary was without sin before Christ's birth, and even after birth, I still believed she may have sinned, just as all humans do. Why? Because she had a human father and mother, therefore, she was born into sin. For a man was the first to sin, therefore, Jesus was born without a human father, hence, this makes him sinless. However, while people can interpret the Bible as saying that babies are born into sin, they are not blinded by sin. They still have their innocence, therefore, they do not know the difference between right and wrong. They learn what is right in the Lord's eyes, and the same of what is wrong. They make choices based on that information, same as you and I did when growing up.

 

[sawdust]

Indeed. People (and not just fundamentalists) often forget that the Bible isn't meant to be interpreted hyper-literally and that there are such things as figure of speeches, metaphors, hyperbole, etc. in the writings, for it was written by humans, not a machine.

[bible]Luke 8:37[/bible]

According to that, that means even the newborn babies and the unborn babies in the region said this to Jesus (unless babies aren't people and/or there were no pregnant women or children in the region).

First you admit not everything is to be taken hyper-literally. Then you take the word hyper-literally.

Why are you playing games with the word of the Lord? Do you want truth or do you want fun?

peace

 

[GenemZ]

People who end up in hell are worth more than sparrows, yet they still end up in hell, so that verse doesn't prove that babies go to Heaven.

That was not even the point...

No one dies outside of God's will. That was the point.

Why do Protestants have so many non-biblical ideas such as this age of accountability?
As for David, this is how I see it: The Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and God doesn't make any exceptions about who needs to believe in Him to be saved, does He? If it does, then God was a liar (according to some). Therefore, either 1) what David said was only David's opinion and not necessarily endorsed by God (after all, the Bible is also a historical book) and babies go to hell for not believing in God, or 2) the Bible contradicts itself.

Are you saying, God will allow a person who is not yet able to decide between right and wrong? To die and go to Hell? How will that person be judged? On the basis of what? The only justice will be done if God already knows that person would believe. God is just. He is unfair. Everyone who rejects salvation will be shown that they did.

Revelation 20:12 niv
"And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books."

All the "good works" people perform everyday? Why? They know they are accounatable to God. At least, they think there might be a God. The fact that they did good works? The fact that they perform good works reveals that they could not deny that there is a God, even as a possibility. Yet, they denied God. Anyone who thinks there is no life after this? Will live a totally selfish and brutal life if that's what it takes to get what they want. A few are like that. These will be judged on the basis that they already know they are condemned if there is a God. Their works will be "evil works."

A baby has no chance to decide upon anything. Good or evil. If, God will not even allow a sparrow to fall to the ground outside of his will? How much more so, will he not allow a baby to die...... Unless, its to prove a point.

A point about how some who claim to know God, do not really know the God of love, at all. God has a purpose in everything. All that happens in this life is either for our vindication, or condemnation. That can only take place if we are capable of making decisions. Babies can not.

So? You believe God allows babies to die, and then sends them to Hell? If it must be his will before they can die? That's a just God? A God of love?

I do not like the god you present. He's weird and cruel as far as I'm concerned.

Romans 2:3-4 (New International Version)
"So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

God's tolerance and patience is given to all, for it leads one to repentance. How can that be bestowed upon a baby that dies before he can learn to think, and is thrown into Hell. The god you present makes no sense. For he is patient and tolerant of all who live? Yet, an innocent baby? He ordains to die and be condemned? My God is Holy. And, no such thing as you imply him to be.

2 Peter 3:9 niv
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

God is taking it too slow for certain human's thinking, with everyone. Yet, a baby is born and he can't wait to send it to Hell? What are you thinking? What is your God? God determines if that baby is to die. Even a sparrow will not die outside of God's will. Your version of God confuses me on how you can even begin to think what you do. Your version of God is harsh. Without love.

Of course... it's possible that not every single individual in existence has fallen short of the glory of God and has sinned.
Also, I'm still trying to figure out how a fetus is able to Jesus to get out of a town as Luke 8:37 states.

"37And all the people of the country of the Gerasenes and the surrounding district asked Him to leave them, for they were gripped with great fear; and He got into a boat and returned. "

Huh? You are making about as much sense of Luke 8:37, as you do of God sending babies to Hell.


In Christ, GeneZ

 

[jasperbound]

First you admit not everything is to be taken hyper-literally. Then you take the word hyper-literally.

Why are you playing games with the word of the Lord? Do you want truth or do you want fun?

peace

I'm exposing the error in such a hyper-literal interpretation.

 

[jasperbound]

Are you saying, God will allow a person who is not yet able to decide between right and wrong? To die and go to Hell? How will that person be judged? On the basis of what? The only justice will be done if God already knows that person would believe. God is just. He is unfair. Everyone who rejects salvation will be shown that they did.

Of course they know right from wrong. All have sinned (active verb there) and fall short of the glory of God. If that includes every single person without exception, then that also includes fetuses.
Does not God not know their hearts? Perhaps that's why He had them die young. Because they wouldn't have repented anyway. Or maybe they did in the womb, even when they didn't a brain or other organs. Again, all have sinned. Nobody is innocent, so stop pretending that anybody is, all right?

A baby has no chance to decide upon anything. Good or evil. If, God will not even allow a sparrow to fall to the ground outside of his will? How much more so, will he not allow a baby to die...... Unless, its to prove a point.

Of course they do. All have sinned. How many times must I repeat that? ALL!

I do not like the god you present. He's weird and cruel as far as I'm concerned.

I don't care much for your God either. He's too inconsistent and based on wishful thinking and is eager to ignore logical conclusions of certain interpretations and eager to adopt non-biblical ideas (i.e. age of accountability) while probably at the same time, criticizing non-biblical ideas of others (i.e. Mary's assumption into Heaven). I don't care much for hypocritical gods.

God's tolerance and patience is given to all, for it leads one to repentance. How can that be bestowed upon a baby that dies before he can learn to think, and is thrown into Hell. The god you present makes no sense. For he is patient and tolerant of all who live? Yet, an innocent baby? He ordains to die and be condemned? My God is Holy. And, no such thing as you imply him to be.

So, holiness is inconsistency and double standards? Gotcha. Also, all have sinned, which means that no child is innocent.

God is taking it too slow for certain human's thinking, with everyone. Yet, a baby is born and he can't wait to send it to Hell? What are you thinking? What is your God? God determines if that baby is to die. Even a sparrow will not die outside of God's will. Your version of God confuses me on how you can even begin to think what you do. Your version of God is harsh. Without love.

My version of God is based on reason, not on wishful thinking. I didn't become a Christian just to have HAPPY THOUGHTS. If I'm going to take the Bible hyper-literally as many do, then I'm going to be consistent with that logic.

Of course, I don't take a hyper-literal interpretation of the Bible, and I understand that even "all" can have exceptions. Some do though, and I wish they were honest enough in their faith to honestly apply that standard consistently throughout the entire Bible.

Huh? You are making about as much sense of Luke 8:37, as you do of God sending babies to Hell.

So, you're going to completely ignore the fact that it mentions the whole multitude, which would include fetuses and embryos, but will not allow exceptions with "all," even though it means the same thing? I never knew double standards based on one's wishful thinking were holy.

 

[sawdust]

I'm exposing the error in such a hyper-literal interpretation.

Oh, I see. Thankyou then and forgive me for not realising how stupid the rest of us are and in need of your brilliance to shine its light.

peace

 

[Sevion]

Some suggest that all babies, even those who believe this verse applies to salvation. So, do the only path to every single individual has sinned, and therefore, Mary cannot have been sinless. If that's the verse applies to every single individual, including babies? If so, that every single individual has sinned, and therefore, Mary cannot have been sinless. If that's the people who believe that the people who die before they die in Heaven with us? Some suggest that babies are sinners right from conception (all have sinned), and consequently, need to repent as much as much as adults.

 

[jasperbound]

Oh, I see. Thankyou then and forgive me for not realising how stupid the rest of us are and in need of your brilliance to shine its light.

If that's sarcasm, which I know it is, then I hope you never ever ever correct anybody. Don't want to be a hypocrite.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Some suggest that babies are sinners right from conception (all have sinned), and consequently, need to repent as much as much as adults.

There is a distinct difference between being born into sin, and being blinded by it. It is the latter that will send one straight to Hades if not for the acceptance of Christ's sacrificial blood to wipe away all sins and allow you to see the light. Babies never have the chance to actually allow sin to guid their lives.

 

[mdvaden]

I was taught once, that a key to reading the Word, is to identify the use of the word "all".

"All" can mean all without exception, or, all with distinction (all of a certain group or class).

And either the immediate or remote context with indicate the use of "all".

The "all" who sinned can't be referring to Jesus, for starters. He's not in that group or class.

 

[bhowe]

At the time of the verse in question, we must remeber that it was a male dominate society, so when it says man it includes his household as well, and like most other languages it had more than one meaning. Pus we must remeber that Adam being the first man and all coming from Adam that when man is used it is in reference to all mankind.
That being said the answer is no. Babies and small children who have not made a concious choice to walk away from the laws, commandments and decrees are not guilty. If they can not even know what is right from wrong, and they do not understand the principles of telling a lie, like small children do, how can they be held accountable.
It's teh same in my oppinioin as infancy baptism. Yeah it is nice, but unless that baby can vocally answer teh ministers questions of do you renounce evil adn accept Jesus as you Lord and Savour, how can that baby be saved? No one can save you for you. It is impossible, like babies who died in infancy, they have done no wrong.

And as far as Mary being freed from sin, the only way that happened is if she herself accepted her Son as Savior. She was not free from sin at the time of conception. If this were true, then God wold have had no reason to send Jesus to us to die on the cross. He couuld have waived His arm and said it is done, then were would free will be. A God that gives us a choice to choose life or our ways of sin which leads to death and then says no I changed my mind, I'm going to spare one person of sin, therefore contradicting myself.
It never happened, with out confessing Christ as Savior

 

[GraceInHim]

Look at it this way, Adam and Eve ate fruit which made them know being naked was a shameful, God had to dress them both - thier eyes were open to sin - so if they have sinned, then we all have... as far as Babies, I dunno - that is a touchy one, we are to be in the image of God when he made man, our hearts are so kind and heartfelt for babies and that do not know better, but then Babies cry, smile, eat, and other things - how is that if they do not know evil but good as babies - seems because they are without sin -

and think to yourself, how far can you remember your own life - mine I would say 4 yrs of age - remember small things - before that - nothing - just a blank slate.

big mystery - only God knows

 

[WarriorAngel]

Anyone know what enmity is?

Peace!

 

[jasperbound]

Look at it this way, Adam and Eve ate fruit which made them know being naked was a shameful, God had to dress them both - thier eyes were open to sin - so if they have sinned, then we all have... as far as Babies, I dunno - that is a touchy one, we are to be in the image of God when he made man, our hearts are so kind and heartfelt for babies and that do not know better, but then Babies cry, smile, eat, and other things - how is that if they do not know evil but good as babies - seems because they are without sin -

and think to yourself, how far can you remember your own life - mine I would say 4 yrs of age - remember small things - before that - nothing - just a blank slate.

big mystery - only God knows

So, we all have sinned except babies? So it's possible that all does not refer to every single person ever in existence?

 

[jasperbound]

I was taught once, that a key to reading the Word, is to identify the use of the word "all".

"All" can mean all without exception, or, all with distinction (all of a certain group or class).

And either the immediate or remote context with indicate the use of "all".

The "all" who sinned can't be referring to Jesus, for starters. He's not in that group or class.

Indeed!

What I've noticed is that people who insist "all" cannot have exception have no problem allowing phrases that refer to everybody to have exceptions elsewhere, such as Luke 8:37. They also allow exceptions for babies, either in that "all have sinned" verse or John 3:16 (which they say would be contradicted by Mary being sinless, so I don't understand how it wouldn't be contradicted by embryos being sinless and/or not needing belief in Christ).

 

[Polycarp1]

Anyone who has ever raised or even dealt with a small child knows that there are two levels to "bad-itude" ... doing wrong out of ignorance, as a little child might, and willful disobedience. One does not punish a three-year-old for doing what he had no clue was a bad thing; one merely stops him/her and tells him/her that it's bad, not to do it again.

One of our Lord's instructions is this:
[bible]Matthew 5:48[/bible]

There is not a one of us who can say that he or she is as perfect as God the Father.

As to Mary, I personally feel that there are two ways to go wrong, and both involve eisegesis. Catholics, out of respect for our Lord's mother, tend to read everything in a manner which holds her up as ideal. (And they do have a point, on a few things: His addressing her as "woman" was not chiding or disrespectful in the language of the day, though to us it sounds that way.) But on the other hand, we are not supposed to be judging her. Reading into "a prophet is not without honor" the implication that Jesus was condemning his own home life is quite literally reading things into the text that may or may not be there. In any case, the Catholic teaching is that Mary, like the rest of us, needed a Savior; it was merely that, in their understanding, His grace worked "ahead of time" to preserve her sinless, in order that Christ's human body and soul be conceived, carried, and born in a sinless way and from a sinless source.

We need to trust more in God's mercy, and less in our own efforts to confine His grace into the straitjackets of our theology. Yes, Paul said "all." And we have evidence here that children believe. Nobody expects a small child to obtain a doctorate in theology. They believe in proportion to their capacity, and their belief and trust is simple and pure. What does a baby know of its baptism? Who can say? God knows, and He is merciful.

Pope Benedict XVI recently stirred up controversy by suggesting that God's grace may be sufficient for those who die too young to believe, for those who were never aware of baptism, etc. Suppose we humbly accept that we, who all definitely are sinners, are saved by His grace alone, and that He is quite competent to know the hearts of the proverbial 3000 BC tribesman, the guy in the jungle who hasn't heard the Gospel, the child who dies young, and all the rest of the "well, what about..." examples raised to question people's theology.

We know Who saved us, and we have our marching orders from Him. And that includes trusting in Him, and working for Him to teach and to bring peopel to Him.